On Approaches to Learning versus Learning Styles: A Reply to Duff et al.'s Comment
The Comment of Duff, Dobie and Guo (forthcoming) offers variable usefulness. At its best, Duff et al.'s Comment makes an earnest attempt to promote dialogue and debate. For example, their Comment offers new ways to reconceptualize our two papers, and further offers challenges to how the research was motivated and executed. As such, their Comment provides glimpses of the healthy polemics that characterized the accounting discipline during the 1960s and 1970s. We are, therefore, most appreciative of how Duff et al. have attempted to rediscover the art of the polemical argument, and are furthermore grateful that they have chosen to include us in their attempt. What we find regrettable about the Comment of Duff et al. is the frequently misinformed bases from which it operates. This problem could have been partially remedied had the authors accepted our offer to provide them with a copy of the research instrument and data. Reminiscent of Plato's The Allegory of the Cave, instead of observing first hand and writing about the objects themselves, Duff et al. have chosen to observe the objects' shadows and write on these. The ultimate consequence is that we, as the replying authors, and it is also the case that this journals' readers, have regrettably been denied the chance to hear, reflect on, and respond to a more informed, more fully grounded argument. In this Reply, we will respond to the various concerns and challenges raised in the Comment of Duff et al. Mindful of the premium placed on journal space, our Reply aims for directness and succinctness. We do, however, offer all interested readers the opportunity to receive a copy of our research instrument and data to verify the comments we make here and/or to verify, replicate, and/or extend the research findings and conclusions we present in our other two papers (Adler, Whiting and Wynn-Williams, 2004; Wynn-Williams, Whiting and Adler, forthcoming).
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 17 (2008)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAED20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RAED20|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:accted:v:17:y:2008:i:2:p:145-149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.